The anti-FV challenge: Part III
(Opening Reminder: If you want to take a stab at making an anti-FV argument in accordance with this challenge, or if you simply want to pass along someone else's argument to me, then please e-mail me at xonhostetter@gmail.com. Cheers!)
--------------------------------------------
Continuing Introduction
Now let's use the CCP Memorial argument from the previous post to illustrate a kind of template for evaluating anti-FV arguments.
The basic format will be to start by listing basic information about the argument. This basic information comprises the two sources of the alleged contradiction (so, the FV thinker(s) and the Confession they allegedly contradict), the source of the actual argument that they are in contradiction, and the proposition about which the contradiction occurs. This last field will be accompanied with a parenthesis telling which source is allegedly pro and contra regarding the proposition. This will be formatted as (FV/Confession). Finally, we will provide the primary source material that the argument claims demonstrates the contradiction (i.e., the quotes from the FV thinker(s) and the Confessional document(s).
This is a basic way to "database" the argument according to its main features in accordance with the rules I-III I've suggested for formatting these arguments. Once this is done, I will directly quote in its entirety (in blockquotes) the argument itself. This will allow us to see how the author(s) explains his reasoning, the precise in which they think the quotations they provide establish the contradiction, etc.
Finally, I will offer evaluation of the argument.
(And, though this is generally inapplicable because anti-FV arguments don't make the attempt, if any argument is given in support of the contradicted proposition being fundamental or indispensable to Reformed orthodoxy, then we will quote that argument verbatim and analyze it as well.)
Let's now plug the previous post into this template, which will make up the remainder of this post.
Basic Dossier
Alleged Contradiction between: Steve Wilkins / Westminster Standards
Source: Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial to the 34th General Assembly of the PCA (2006), later referred to the Standing Judicial Commission
Contradicted Proposition: The elect cannot do other than end up in glory. (contra/pro)
FV source material:
"The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the savior, they are no longer elect—they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. (The Federal Vision, page 58)"Confessional source material:
"...God hath appointed the elect unto glory..." (WCF III.6)-------------------------------------------------
Argument verbatim:
TE Wilkins publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant contradiction to our Standards. Whereas the Confession teaches that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through unbelief. He writes: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the savior, they are no longer elect—they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing” (The Federal Vision, p. 58).------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation
(Click to read evaluation: Mostly a repetition of previous analysis)
It looks like the CCP Memorial is objecting to Wilkins' claim that elect people can "lose their elect standing", whereas the Confession says that God has appointed them "unto glory" (which means that they have to end up going to Heaven, because everything God appoints to happens does indeed happen, according to the Confession and basic Reformed theology). Our proposition, then, is something like this:
The Confessional understanding of "elect" is relatively uncontroversial. It is using "elect" to refer to those people whom God chose from the foundation of the world to live with Him eternally in glory. There's more we could say about these people, but that's the basic group that the the Confession is talking about whenever it uses the word "elect."
Now let's look at Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision. The CCP Memorial quoted page 58, where Wilkins is discussing what he thinks the Bible says about "the elect." He is discussing how the Scriptures use the word "elect," not whether he agrees with the "doctrine of election" found in the Westminster Standards. And he thinks that the Scriptures often use that word to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and who are thus obligated to cling to Christ by faith continually or else they will be cut out of the covenant and they will lose their union-by-baptism and they will go to Hell. This, according to Wilkins, is the group of people referred to most often when the word "elect" is used in the Bible. And this is clearly the group Wilkins is referring to in the quote the Memorial selects from page 58, in which he goes on immediately to say:
Lest you think I am putting words in Wilkins' mouth, let's look two pages earlier in the article. His words on p. 56 clearly contextualize what he says on p. 58. On p. 56, before he starts listing out the ways the Bible uses the word "elect," he sets up that discussion by saying the following:
1. He claims that he is about to discuss the way the word "elect" in the Scriptures, and that he thinks such a usage is generally referring to a "covenantal" kind of election.
2. He also clearly claims that he believes in the traditional Reformed kind of election, in which God predestines who goes to Heaven.
So it is clear, in this very article which the CCP Memorial cites, that Wilkins believes in two kinds of "election" which are compatible. It is clear that they are compatible, because they are talking about two different groups of people (with some significant overlap, certainly) elected to two different purposes. He also makes it clear that he is about to launch into a discussion of the covenantal kind of election as (he believes) it is found in Scripture. The clear and indisputable intention of Wilkins' words in the passage on page 58 which the Memorial cites in its accusation against him, thus, is to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally related to Christ by their baptism, but who have not necessarily been chosen to have eternal salvation. But Wilkins also, just as clearly and indisputably, affirms that there is a group of people who have been predestined to eternal salvation. Wilkins clearly believes in both groups of people. The latter group is what the Reformed have traditionally called "the elect." The former is what Wilkins says the Scriptures usually mean whey they use the word "elect."
So this means that there is something tragically wrong with the alleged contradicted proposition (P1), because clearly the word "elect" means one thing in the Wilkins passage cited by the Memorial and something else in the Confessional passage cited by the same. In Wilkins it refers to a group of people chosen to be covenantally bound to Christ by baptism, while in the Confession it refers to a group of people chosen to live with God forever in glory. Thus:
So, what other conclusion can we draw but that the CCP Memorial has committed the fallacy of equivocation? Its authors clearly have assumed that "elect" carries the same meaning in both passages (WCF III.6 and Wilkins' article page 58), when it most clearly does not. When the two usages of "elect" are understood in their proper context, the alleged contradiction dissolves, and the CCP is left with egg on its logical face.
P1: The elect cannot do other than end up in glory, [see above]and it looks as though the Westminster Confession affirms P1 while Wilkins denies it. Contradiction, right? No, not so fast! Both the Confession and Wilkins use the word "elect," sure; but do they mean the same thing by it? Let's look more closely.
The Confessional understanding of "elect" is relatively uncontroversial. It is using "elect" to refer to those people whom God chose from the foundation of the world to live with Him eternally in glory. There's more we could say about these people, but that's the basic group that the the Confession is talking about whenever it uses the word "elect."
Now let's look at Wilkins' article in the book The Federal Vision. The CCP Memorial quoted page 58, where Wilkins is discussing what he thinks the Bible says about "the elect." He is discussing how the Scriptures use the word "elect," not whether he agrees with the "doctrine of election" found in the Westminster Standards. And he thinks that the Scriptures often use that word to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and who are thus obligated to cling to Christ by faith continually or else they will be cut out of the covenant and they will lose their union-by-baptism and they will go to Hell. This, according to Wilkins, is the group of people referred to most often when the word "elect" is used in the Bible. And this is clearly the group Wilkins is referring to in the quote the Memorial selects from page 58, in which he goes on immediately to say:
"But their falling away doesn't negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ."Here he is talking about a kind of election that doesn't have to do with whether you are predestined to go to Heaven; it has to do with whether you have a "relationship with Christ." And Wilkins believes that the Bible presents all baptized people as having a covenantal relationship with Christ, and hence as being "elect" in this sense.
Lest you think I am putting words in Wilkins' mouth, let's look two pages earlier in the article. His words on p. 56 clearly contextualize what he says on p. 58. On p. 56, before he starts listing out the ways the Bible uses the word "elect," he sets up that discussion by saying the following:
It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term 'elect' to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things "whatsoever comes to pass" (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will. But the term 'elect' (or 'chosen') as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One. (The Federal Vision, page 56, emphasis added)Then he goes on immediately to sum up what he thinks is the Biblical teaching: "In the Old Testament,...." Notice two things that Wilkins does in this passage:
1. He claims that he is about to discuss the way the word "elect" in the Scriptures, and that he thinks such a usage is generally referring to a "covenantal" kind of election.
2. He also clearly claims that he believes in the traditional Reformed kind of election, in which God predestines who goes to Heaven.
So it is clear, in this very article which the CCP Memorial cites, that Wilkins believes in two kinds of "election" which are compatible. It is clear that they are compatible, because they are talking about two different groups of people (with some significant overlap, certainly) elected to two different purposes. He also makes it clear that he is about to launch into a discussion of the covenantal kind of election as (he believes) it is found in Scripture. The clear and indisputable intention of Wilkins' words in the passage on page 58 which the Memorial cites in its accusation against him, thus, is to refer to a group of people who have been chosen to be covenantally related to Christ by their baptism, but who have not necessarily been chosen to have eternal salvation. But Wilkins also, just as clearly and indisputably, affirms that there is a group of people who have been predestined to eternal salvation. Wilkins clearly believes in both groups of people. The latter group is what the Reformed have traditionally called "the elect." The former is what Wilkins says the Scriptures usually mean whey they use the word "elect."
So this means that there is something tragically wrong with the alleged contradicted proposition (P1), because clearly the word "elect" means one thing in the Wilkins passage cited by the Memorial and something else in the Confessional passage cited by the same. In Wilkins it refers to a group of people chosen to be covenantally bound to Christ by baptism, while in the Confession it refers to a group of people chosen to live with God forever in glory. Thus:
P2(Wilkins): Those chosen by God to be covenantally united to Christ by baptism can fail to end up in glory.Instead of one proposition, P1, which the Confession affirms but Wilkins denies, we really have two different propositions, P2 and P3, which are not contradictory at all!
P3(WCF): Those chosen by God to live with Him eternally in glory cannot do anything but end up in glory.
So, what other conclusion can we draw but that the CCP Memorial has committed the fallacy of equivocation? Its authors clearly have assumed that "elect" carries the same meaning in both passages (WCF III.6 and Wilkins' article page 58), when it most clearly does not. When the two usages of "elect" are understood in their proper context, the alleged contradiction dissolves, and the CCP is left with egg on its logical face.
0 comments:
Post a Comment